This is EXACTLY what the Bills need to do

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ajsdx
    Registered User
    • Aug 2003
    • 1436

    This is EXACTLY what the Bills need to do

    Dr. Z's Rankings, Bills fall from 27 to 29. Pretty accurate there. His comment:

    "Buffalo Bills (0-3)
    They went after the Patriots with real passion, on both sides of the ball. There was a point in the game when I thought they'd win it. But, and I've been a defender of Drew Bledsoe when other people took heavy shots, he's at the stage of his career in which he simply must have good protection for him to function. And he ain't got it. The worst thing, though, is that he'll get his receivers hurt because he puts them in awkward positions, reaching for throws that are just off the mark. If I were Mike Mularkey I'd max-protect almost the whole way, send out minimal receivers and polish the running game."

    This is exactly what we should do. Max protect every down, kind of like what they do with rookies and new quarterbacks. Pound the ball inside most of the game, even if it does cause a few three and outs in the process; take a shot down the field every once in a while, since the Pats game shows he still has the arm and the downfield accuracy to do so. At least then, we won't be beating ourselves. I'm envisioning a one, at most two, wide receiver set. Occasionally one of the TEs or RBs could go catch something to mix things up, but for the most part counters, tosses, sweeps, and power runs. And you've got Moorman, a 3 and out is a little easier to take. We even have two sort of good running backs that we could rotate to keep them fresh. If only we had some offensive linemen...

  • ScottLawrence
    Registered User
    • Jan 2004
    • 1450

    #2
    Originally posted by ajsdx
    Dr. Z's Rankings, Bills fall from 27 to 29. Pretty accurate there. His comment:

    "Buffalo Bills (0-3)
    They went after the Patriots with real passion, on both sides of the ball. There was a point in the game when I thought they'd win it. But, and I've been a defender of Drew Bledsoe when other people took heavy shots, he's at the stage of his career in which he simply must have good protection for him to function. And he ain't got it. The worst thing, though, is that he'll get his receivers hurt because he puts them in awkward positions, reaching for throws that are just off the mark. If I were Mike Mularkey I'd max-protect almost the whole way, send out minimal receivers and polish the running game."

    This is exactly what we should do. Max protect every down, kind of like what they do with rookies and new quarterbacks. Pound the ball inside most of the game, even if it does cause a few three and outs in the process; take a shot down the field every once in a while, since the Pats game shows he still has the arm and the downfield accuracy to do so. At least then, we won't be beating ourselves. I'm envisioning a one, at most two, wide receiver set. Occasionally one of the TEs or RBs could go catch something to mix things up, but for the most part counters, tosses, sweeps, and power runs. And you've got Moorman, a 3 and out is a little easier to take. We even have two sort of good running backs that we could rotate to keep them fresh. If only we had some offensive linemen...

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?cnn=yes

    Isn't that exactly what we do?
    You're right, I am a coward! I haven't any courage at all. I even scare myself.

    Comment

    • ajsdx
      Registered User
      • Aug 2003
      • 1436

      #3
      either that, or just give the ball to Moorman on every play and see what happens.

      Comment

      • Mr. Cynical
        Maybe?
        • Oct 2003
        • 9766

        #4
        Originally posted by ajsdx
        either that, or just give the ball to Moorman on every play and see what happens.


        Comment

        Working...
        X